Sal Cordova and Aging Galaxies

Conversation Side Conversation
41

We look up in the night sky, and we see our sun is just one star among a picture that looks like this:

milkyway
milkyway.jpg1600×1000 220 KB

Whatever you may think about how distances to far away galaxies are measured, we have a pretty good idea how big the Milky way galaxy is, and how far away it’s center is from us.

So we zoom in on one of the more blurry parts, and see something like this:

small_gabany_ngc891_2010
small_gabany_ngc891_2010.jpg1203×600 389 KB

Weird right? It looks like the same thing, just from further away. From the outside, instead of from the inside.

We are clearly orbiting a star that is inside a galaxy, and we can see out of that galaxy and see other galaxies, that look like ur own galaxy.

So we zoom in even more on another of those blurry parts, and we see:

NGC4921_HubbleShatz_4046
NGC4921_HubbleShatz_4046.jpg2022×1911 3.87 MB

More galaxies, behind which are more galaxies, and they’re pretty much fogs of stars. Galaxies literally as far away as we can see.

Without even having to do much work regarding the actual distances involved, what is clear is that our sun is a star among many in our own galaxy, and even the nearest stars are incredibly far away. In general, the stars within our galaxy are all incredibly far away from each other, so our own galaxy is incredibly big.

And the nearest galaxy to our own, which looks alot like our own, is so far away it can’t even be seen with the naked eye and is a barely noticeable smudge with good binoculars. Some rather simple inferences should now tell us that the distances involved must be enormous.

And it just keeps going, we zoom in on those galaxies with good telescopes, and find that they are made of stars like our own galaxy is. And still it keeps going, the galaxies, hiding behind still more galaxies. We keep making more and more powerful telescopes, and they just find more, even tinier galaxies(which to any rational observer is an indication that they are even further away). We don’t have to take a PhD in astrophysics to understand the concept here. The further away it is, the smaller it appears to us. When do chilren first realize this? Two, three years old? Not rocket science.

Now Sal comes along and says: Forget all that, it all just LOOKS LIKE it’s far away, but it’s an illusion, because I have a book…!

But he doesn’t want to say “God made it with the appearance of age or distance” because he seems to understand that would be bad PR. It looks idiotic to say something like that, so he doesn’t want to commit to it. But what is the alternative? We look out at the stars, and it really appears to have distance. So God must have created the light in-transit, right? I really don’t see the way out of this.

And we haven’t even looked at pictures of galaxy collisions. God made them mid-collision? Actually, even worse. He made in-transit light come to us and give us the appearance of mid-collision galaxies.

3 Likes
42

But that’s just the problem. These things do have the appearance of a long history but yet you will explain away them but either denying the history (as with saying we don’t understand stellar evolution well enough - is this your personal analysis or the analysis of astrophysicists) or by ignoring some things with apparent histories.

What are you talking about? Do you plan to just ignore actual measurements? Yes we try to break radiometric decay all the time and need to be careful using elements whose decay rates can change (i.e. don’t use Rhenium 187).

3 Likes
43

Every Irony Meter within a 50 mile radius just vaporized.

1 Like
44

@stcordova

He was not attributing anything to you except a phrasing that you would not use, and no apology is required.

If you would read carefully, you could see that what he meant was what he was about to say, and maybe should have said that you wouldn’t phrase things this way, followed by saying it in a manner that you would not, namely, “…we can see evidence of things that have undergone very long histories including radioactive dating of clusters and even direct stars.”

1 Like
45

For the reader’s benefit, I point out what I actually said above:

The worst one is “God made it look old and created the light enroute.” Even Answers in Genesis cringes at this one, but it was one Duane Gish at the ICR promoted. Gish protested to me personally once in e-mail that I didn’t like his model. I gave him a cordial “thank you” for contacting me, and thanked him for all he had done for YEC/YCC. He died shortly thereafter writing me. God rest his soul.

Yet Dr. Pevarnik accuses me of

stcordova just believes that globular clusters were created to look as if they’ve undergone millions to billions of years worth of cosmic evolution:

No, I don’t believe that. Dr. Pevarnic thinks they look old, I don’t. I don’t think it’s clear how old they really are. But he refuses to retract his misrepresentation of my views.

Proton-21, Bryan Nickel explains it in relation to Earth radioactivity, but it also relates to stellar nucleosynthesis and supposed decay products. Nickel relates the work of the Proton-21 lab. I found it pretty fascinating in it’s own right.

These things do have the appearance of a long history
Well geocentrism looked real too till we learned more! And we are learning more, and our view of supposed radioactive decay products is not final if there are other mechanisms of formation of these supposed products.

46

He was not attributing anything to you except a phrasing you would not use, and no apology is required.

47

He said this:

I don’t believe that. He could of course ask me what I believe, but he insists I believe that when I don’t.

48

Maybe Sal can explain how his claims are any different than YECs who claim God planted all those fake fossils and all the fake geologic evidence just to fool us.

49

Okay. My reference was to what you did indeed misread and were falsely accusing him.

50

Dr. Pevarnik said:

I don’t believe that. That’s false. I never said: “globular clusters were created to look as if they’ve undergone millions to billions of years worth of cosmic evolution.”

That’s not something I believe, that’s not something I said.

51

Sal, how would you explain this image of the Antennae Galaxies? https://images.app.goo.gl/BfvvkYjTA3AkFcVZA

1 Like
52

Rich,

If that’s an counter to YEC/YCC, I’ll put that in my inventory of objections to YEC/YCC. I presume given the length of the antenna, it would take longer than 6,500 to form.

Thank you for that. If you have more, I’ll be glad to collect them and pass them on to my students.

53

No one quoted you as saying that.

Methinks someone doth protest too much.

54

Sal, how would you explain this image of the Antennae Galaxies? https://images.app.goo.gl/BfvvkYjTA3AkFcVZA

Humprheys white hole cosmology (a YEC cosmology) attempted to explain that by invoking time running much faster the farther from Earth observations were made. It thus can reconcile long ages far away with short ages near by.

The White Hole solution is not universally accepted by all YECs such as Jason Lisle, (I believe).

55

And that is not what I was referring to.

56

But that’s not what you think, right? You think everything was created pretty much in its current state, as you have said above. And your reasons for supposing that are that we don’t know everything about stellar evolution. This is not an easily defensible position, so I can see why you don’t try.

57

Correct, and I could be wrong, and Dr. Humphreys could be closer to the truth. PW Dennis models raises some interesting possibilities where time could flow fast in some places. I think it’s too early to make a call.

. This is not an easily defensible position, so I can see why you don’t try.

That’s an accurate characterization.

. And your reasons for supposing that are that we don’t know everything about stellar evolution.

We don’t know a lot.

58

At ICC 2018, during the Q&A with Dr. PW Dennis, I asked about eschatology, I specifically cited Jesus’ words:

“In those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

I would presume “stars will be falling from heaven” is a figure of speech, but this would require coordination across vast distances. So I asked Dr. Dennis if his model would permit us to see such events happening from vast distances. He said, “yes.”

So, I suppose, in principle this is a testable hypothesis. I ran this issue by Dr. Humphrey’s and the other YEC/YCC’s and they agreed YEC Cosmology is also tied to Eschatology. There has to be fast transport of light across space so we can see the fireworks show at the end of time.

59

Still on the subject of aging stars, I would like Sal @stcordova’s (or any YEC’s) explanation for this: extinct radioactive nuclides in the solar system.

(And it would be disingenuous to say anything about variability of decay rates.):

This is what the LORD says: If I have not established My covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…

1 Like
60

Right since you reject the main sequence? Obviously you can try to deny the appearance of age by saying “meh, doesn’t look old to me!” For reference the lifespan of main sequence stars in a simple way is generally calculated by:
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/M/Main+Sequence+Lifetime

But there are other astrophysical objects like the galaxy I mentioned above with clear evidence of being pulled toward another object leaving a trail of gas 400,000 light years long.

Noooooooooooooooooooo not the hydroplate theory. I did write this up on hydroplate theory the other day:

2 Likes